Marc Faber: ‘Apple could go bust’

Marc Faber says Apple reminds him of Polaroid, and that we could see the company go completely belly-up, with CNBC’s Jackie DeAngelis and the Futures Now Traders.

Well, basically, this is the kind of stuff I’m really not interested in. This is the kind of Polaroid of 1970. Uh, Dr. Land, who was the founder of Polaroid, has more patents under his head than anyone else in the world and Polaroid went bust. And, we have many other examples of high tech companies that just faded away… I’m not saying [Apple Inc.] will go bust, I said it could go bust – eventually. Not tomorrow and not the day after tomorrow, but it’s basically a toy company for grownups. – Marc Faber, October 15, 2013

Direct link to video here.

MacDailyNews Take:

An optimist will tell you the glass is half-full; the pessimist, half-empty; and the engineer will tell you the glass is twice the size it needs to be. – Anonymous

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “DW Bowers” for the heads up.]

90 Comments

    1. No no, you don’t understand. It’s Apple that will go bust, because apple just makes toys for adults. Someday these adults will wake up and see that they’ve been hoodwinked by expensive, useless toys. THEN Apple will go bust. QED

      [I’m being sarcastic]

      1. So Marc, and every other clear-thinking, hard-headed grownup will be sure to fly only Delta — whose flight bags are Microsoft Surfaces. Who wants to crash land because the pilots are playing with toy iPads up in the cockpit?

        Oh, and avoid the Mayo Clinic, even if you’ve suffered a stroke: they use those Apple toys internally for medical records, physician consults, and patient care.

      2. Steve Jobs said that death was the force that moves things forward. Old brained people that want the world to go back to their childhood will die someday. And the world will move on.

        Just a thought.

    2. The difference is Dr. Land of Polaroid pretty much focused on one thing – instant photochemical photography (and later scanners, etc.). Polaroid was not nearly as diverse as Apple is. Apple will cannibalize itself too in order to move on to the next thing. Marc Faber is a nitwit Super Anal-Cyst without a leg of sense to stand on..

      1. Precisely. Apple is always looking to solve a problem consumers have, even if they don’t realize it is a problem. Thus the iPod, iPhone and iPad came about. Apple will be only too happy to do the same thing to the next consumer irritant it finds a solution to.

        And that’s the difference between Apple and companies like Polaroid: Apple looks to solve problems with great technology; Polaroid looked to create instant pictures, which people eventually didn’t need because of computers, digital photo frames, and — ironically — iPhones and iPads.

      2. Good point about Apple’s diversity. Remember the uproar six years ago when Apple dropped “computer” from its name? I think they were supposed to go bust back then too.

    3. My Budwieser rep walked into my store today with a brand new iPad that he is using to do orders etc. It is replacing his 5 pound Windows tablet that needed 3 batteries to function during the day. Anyone calling Apple a toy company is completely full of crap, this device is replacing sales tools all over the US.

      1. My Re-Bath rep did the same thing. No hauling tile samples, countertop samples, showerhead styles, faucet photobooks etc. Whole thing done on an iPad. Oh yeh, NO HERNIA either!
        Apple going “down the gurgler” as they say in the UK?
        Not anytime soon. Who pays these stuck-on-stupid analysts?

    1. They pick Apple because 1) it’s the most successful company in the world right now. 2) it’s a guaranteed source of hits. Saying “Apple” to market watchers is like saying “Squirrel” to the dog in the movie “UP” 3) It’s true. It’s also true of Microsoft, Dell, Coca Cola, Wal Mart and every company in the world. Any company could be mismanaged to the point of nonexistence.

      I have no idea who Marc Faber is but based on these stunningly stupid comments I’m guessing he just got out some sort of business school.

    2. It’s the Goliath Syndrome: A person of small stature or having low self worth who attempts to bring down or put dents in a large successful company in order to elevate his standing, usually resulting in laughter or eyes that roll to the back of ones head, several times.

    3. I have no idea who Marc Faber is. By the article he is an attention seeking loser as far I am concern. He did not pose the big question, which will come first end of the world or Apple going bust? It rank up there with P vs NP.

    4. Mark Faber is an Influential ‘Contrarian’ Investor, correctly predicted a few ‘crashes’, and charges a premium for his investment advice. He is an Analyst by trade, and as MDN has amply demonstrated over the past several years, Analysts really don’t understand Apple, or have a Hidden Agenda. As others have correctly noted, saying ‘Apple’ in their opinion pieces is a guaranteed attention-getter. The Advice, however, is questionable. The problem with this advice, is myopia: it is more likely that Microsoft will go bust long before Apple ever does.

    1. The thing is, we’re living through a communications revolution. Cupertino, CA, is the epicenter of mass communications innovation, and this idiot is calling Apple a toy company for grownups. Kind of shocking, actually.

    2. I’d like to bust a cap in his buttocks. How does a company burn through $150 billion and not try to avert bankruptcy along the way using some counter-measures?

  1. Nothing that $150 billion on the bank can’t solve. I dare say that the Jobs estate has another $10 billion or so to kick in when Apple’s gas tank reaches empty.

    That is if the Obama administration haven’t racked up another trillion or do in debt sinking the dollar to levels not seen since Dutch traders bought the island of Manhattan for a couple of strings of beads and trinkets.

  2. The world “could” also be hit by an asteroid next year, ending all life on the planet.

    A lot of things could happen.

    I thought that the point of an analyst or fund manager was to determine value based on PROBABILITIES of likely outcomes within a reasonable time frame, which for the stock market is really only about 10 years.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.